ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

sections": [ "68", "133(6)", "143(2)", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

133(6) were issued to confirm the transactions, however, the same did not elicit any satisfactory response. Accordingly, the assessee was required to demonstrate the fulfillment of ingredients of Section 68

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

133(6) which were returned back. During A.Y. 2009-10 the appellant could not prove the source and creditworthiness of the share capital received. The shares of the company in the subsequent years had been transferred to certain related persons which also indicates that the share capital received was not genuine. The crux of the order is that

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 68 to 69D, also needs to be understood in the same manner, as attempt to evade tax/penalty/ interest etc. In view of the above facts, the contention of the appellant is not found acceptable and the unexplained cash has been rightly taxed by the AO u/s 115BBE of the Act.” 7. The Ld. Council has reiterated the submissions

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

68,034/- From the above details it can be noted that quantity and the amount of purchases made from M/s Maximum Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. is duly recorded in the regular books of accounts and the same is also supported by the stock records. Only for the bank purpose, purchase is shown to the banker in seven names including M/s Maximum

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68 by proving the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR numbers / permanent account numbers and the copies of assessment orders wherever readily available, that it had also proved the capacity of the creditors by showing that the amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques drawn from bank accounts of the creditors

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. PLAZA TEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. deleting addition of 2,24,00,000/- merely by pointing out the faults in the order of AO but did not give any positive findings and neither referred to the documents placed on assessment record as the powers of CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the AO, as held

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

133/- 11.03 8,69,882/- 2.33 2014-15 4,37,93,728/- 54,20,760/- 12.38 9,56,413/- 2.18 2015-16 4,93,92,963/- 50,88,999/- 10.30 5,24,975/- 2016-17 6,34, 1,436/- 89, 76,434/- 14.16 5,91,282/- 0.93 2017-18 5,81,26,519/- 97,48,211/- 16.77 6

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

133/- 11.03 8,69,882/- 2.33 2014-15 4,37,93,728/- 54,20,760/- 12.38 9,56,413/- 2.18 2015-16 4,93,92,963/- 50,88,999/- 10.30 5,24,975/- 2016-17 6,34, 1,436/- 89, 76,434/- 14.16 5,91,282/- 0.93 2017-18 5,81,26,519/- 97,48,211/- 16.77 6

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

133 taxmann.com 289 (SC) Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle,Noida [2021] 132 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi - Trib.) Gambhir Silk Mills v. ACIT [2011] 45 SOT 20 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) of Senate v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC - 1(3), Bangalore [2016] 68 taxmann.com 223 (Bangalore - Trib.) 36. The Ld. AR of the Assessee has also

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% by the ld. AO. 3.3 Ld. AO also noted from the computation of income filed that the assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 17,19,605/- on account of sale of immovable properties. Ld. AO considering the fact that the assessee engaged in the business of real estate